Sdk Create Feature

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond the annotations: that the operation registers a native Undo item and that field/geometry input is constrained. It does not explain what the constraints are or what the expected_*_generation guard params imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the mechanism front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification for such a complex signature.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, but the description leaves the 6 required guard/session parameters undocumented and gives no prerequisites (session lease, context generation) for a mutation tool that depends on them. Incomplete for an 8-param write operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters (6 required), including opaque optimistic-concurrency fields (expected_map_uri, expected_context_generation, expected_edit_generation) and a 'confirm' toggle. The description only vaguely gestures at fields and geometry, leaving the majority of parameters entirely undefined in both structured and unstructured form.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (create), resource (2D feature), and mechanism (ArcGIS Pro EditOperation that produces a native Undo item). This is enough to separate it from bulk-write siblings like arcgis_pro_da_insert_features or arcgis_pro_gp_create_feature_class, though it does not name them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It hints at a constraint ('fields and geometry are restricted') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing toward alternative edit tools (edit_apply, da_insert_features, sdk_modify_selected_features). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.